9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 897 - HC - Service TaxProcedural compliance - the Commissioner and his officials are playing a blamegame. To cover up their lapses and deficiencies, they turned around and blamed their Advocates. They are of the opinion that their Advocates ought to inform them and at every stage of the matter, particularly as to which office objections have to be complied with or are to be removed - Held that - If the officers are unaware of legal procedures, then, they have to be in touch with their Advocates and periodically. They cannot expect that the Advocate himself comes to their office and apprise them as to what further has to be done after the filing of an Appeal - This blame game must be immediately stopped.
Issues:
Procedural compliance in filing an appeal, delay in complying with procedural rules, dismissal of appeals for want of procedural compliance, delay in condoning the appeal, failure to remove office objections, blame game between officials and advocates, lack of coordination between revenue officials and advocates. Analysis: The judgment by the Bombay High Court addresses various issues related to procedural compliance in filing appeals and the subsequent actions taken by the Revenue. The Court notes that an appeal filed on 22-1-2014 to challenge an order dated 18-4-2013 did not comply with procedural rules, leading to a conditional order dated 18-9-2014 warning that appeals can be dismissed for non-compliance. The Registry dismissed the appeals on 26-10-2015 due to lack of procedural compliance, specifically the delay in condoning the appeal. The Revenue's understanding that only one procedural formality needed compliance led to delays in addressing other objections, resulting in the belief that the appeals could not be prosecuted on merit. The Court criticized the blame game between officials and advocates, emphasizing the need for better coordination and communication. The Commissioner and officials were reminded of their duty to be aware of legal procedures and follow up on cases regularly. In the interest of justice, the Court accepted the explanation provided in an additional affidavit and granted four weeks to remove all office objections. The Court did not impose costs in these appeals due to the efforts made by the advocates to address the lapses. The judgment highlights the importance of adherence to procedural rules, effective coordination between officials and advocates, and the need for officers to actively engage in the legal process to avoid delays and dismissals of appeals.
|
